Back in January he told us Xi Jinping has very good control of the covid situation and everything will turn out fine and this does not pose a danger to the United States.
Back in January Faucci told Trump Xi had very good control over the Covid situation and everything will turn out fine and this does not pose a danger to the United States. The expert. Science!
" If you put all these things together, I underscore what Bob said: We still have a low risk to the American public, but we want to keep it at a low risk. And because there are so many unknowns here, we’re going to take the action that the Secretary will describe, in a temporary way, to make sure we mitigate, as best as we possibly can, this risk. Thank you. "
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 3:42 P.M. EST SECRETARY AZAR: Well, good afternoon, everyone. I'm Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services, a
www.whitehouse.gov
We now know that his intelligence services told him something completely different and when cornered on the discrepancy told us he has to be a cheerleader.
What the intelligence services feel a disease risk is is more important than the disease experts? Beyond a claim it is a weaponized or intentionally released act of war, it seems the disease experts should be the ones to follow. As to "cheerleader", can you flesh that out a bit? Are optimistic people "cheeerleaders" or does there have to be some other issue involved?
The conspiratorial nonsense is similar to the other far-left claims of error. We were just about in a trade war with Xi and now Trump's supposed to be his best buddy in order to increase harm to the U.S. Right. There were lots of claims from lots of people and this attempt to rewrite history (like the most obvious example above) isn't really worth my time until there are some specifics to the wild claims. (Quotes, citations of when, stuff like that.)
For the vaccine, I'm not camping out waiting to be first in line. And, I'm a vaccine guy. I get all that are recommended. But, it is not going to be my choice at all. They will accentuate the need for health care providers and first responders to get the shot and then extend to the most vulnerable populations where many are in close contact for long periods indoors. (Prisons, nursing homes, poultry workers) Then it will be more generally offered with the real question come up, is it right or wrong to market the thing to other vulnerable populations?
We see there may be a relationship between race and effect of the virus that may or may not be related to economics. (There are competing studies as to if there is disparity at all.) Should a special effort be made to get the vaccine into the black community that may be disproportionately affected? Is that a reasonable step the public health professionals should recommend or is it a racist way to kill more black Americans?
In any event, we're probably a few months of other priorities before 'ol Gunk even gets a chance to drink from that sweet, sweet nectar of Covid vaccine so I'm not too worried about marketing to him at this time. Maybe, if we find we're not already at an extinguishing pandemic, we will need his cooperation in taking one for the team to help us get to the mathematical place of herd immunity. At that time, I hope Snoop is used more than Jared.